T. Narayana Reddiar vs The Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards, Madras and others

Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J.—This is an appeal from the judgment of Veeraswami J. who dismissed the appellant''s application for the issue of

a writ of mandamus directing the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards to hold elections to Kadamalaiputhur Panchayat. In the

Chingleput Dt. there are two revenue villages, Perambur Kandigai and Kadamalaiputhur, each of which has a population of more than 500

persons; both are situate adjacent to each other. On 31st May, 1958 the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards issued a notification

under S. 3 (1) of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1960 declaring Perambar Kandigai as a village for the purpose of the Act. He fixed by that

notification the number of members to the Panchayat at eight. Nearly two years later, on 31st March, 1960, a similar notification was issued with

respect to Kadamalaiputhur and the number of members to the Panchayat was limited to five. On 9th November, 1960, the Inspector of Municipal

Councils and Local Boards issued two notifications, the first cancelling under S. 3 (2) (c) (ii) the earlier notification dated 31st March, 1960 which

is declared Kadamalaiputhur as a separate village for the purposes of the Act. The other notification purported to amalgamate Kadamalaiputhur

with Perumbar Kandigai and the total number of members fixed for the Panchayat was 13, the former village being subsequently treated as one of

the wards of the Panchayat newly formed. Although the later notification does not in express terms modify the notification with respect to

Perumbar Kandigai dated 31st May, 1958, it can be taken on a fair reading of the respective notifications that the intention of the Inspector of

Local Boards was to do so. The appellant who was a resident-taxpayer of Kadamalaiputhur applied to this Court under Art. 226 of the

Constitution stating that once the authority functioning under S. 3 (1) (c) of the Act constituted a local area into a village as was done under the

notification dated 31st May, 1960 it would not be later open to that authority to cancel that notification particularly as the area affected, namely,

Kadamalaiputhur was itself a revenue village with a population of over 500 inhabitants. Veeraswami J. found no merits in the contention as he held

that it was competent for the Inspector to cancel, modify or alter a notification previously made and to amalgamate more than one revenue village

into a single village for the purpose of the application of the provisions of the Act. The learned Judge accordingly dismissed the petition; hence this

appeal. To appreciate the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the appellant, it is necessary first to set out S. 3 of the Panchayats Act:

3 (1) The Inspector shall by notification : (a) classify and declare every local area comprising a revenue village or villages or any portion or revenue

village or contiguous portions of two or more revenue villages and having a population estimated at not less than five thousand and annual income

estimated at not less than ten thousand rupees as a Panchayat town for the purposes of this Act; (b) classify and declare every other local area

comprising a revenue village or villages or any portion of a revenue village or contiguous portions of two or more revenue villages with a population

estimated at not less than five hundred as a Panchayat village for the purposes of this Act; and (c) specify the name of such Panchayat town or

panchayat village;

(2) (a) The Inspector may, by not (sic) exclude from a village or town any (sic) comprised therein, provided that the population of the village or

town after such exclusion, is not less than five hundred.

(b) In regard to any area excluded under clause (a), the Inspector shall by notification under Sub-S. (1), declare it to be a village or town if it has a

population of not less than five hundred or if its population is less than five hundred includes it in any contiguous village or town under Cl. c (i);

(c) The Inspector may, by notification� (i) include in a village or town any local area contiguous thereto; or (ii) cancel or modify a notification

issued under Sub-S. (1); or (iii) alter the name of any village or town specified under Sub-S. (1);

(d) Before issuing a notification under Cl. (a) or under Cl. (b) read with Sub-S. (1) or under Cl. (c), the Inspector shall give the Panchayat or

Panchayats which will be affected by the issue of such notification a reasonable opportunity for showing cause against the proposal and shall

consider the explanations and objections, if any, of such Panchayat or panchayats.

(3) Any rate payer or inhabitant of such area or any Panchayat concerned, may, if he or it objects to any notification under Sub-S. (1) or Sub-S.

(2), appeal to the Government within such period as may be prescribed (rest of the section omitted as not necessary).

The term ""village"" has been defined in S. 2 (35) of the Act as meaning any local area which is declared to be a Panchayat village under S. 3 Sub-S.

(1). It would follow from this definition that for the purposes of the Panchayat Act there will be a village only if there is a notification under the Act.

The term ""revenue village"" has been defined as any local area which is recognised as a village in the revenue accounts of Government after

excluding therefrom the area specified in the Act. It is not however necessary for the purpose of this case to refer to them.

Mr. T.R. Srinivasan appearing for the appellant has contended, that under S. 3(1) (b) every revenue village should be notified as a separate

Panchayat and it would not be competent for the Inspector of Local Boards to amalgamate the villages and form them into one and call it a village

for the purposes of the Panchayats Act. This contention cannot be accepted having regard to the terms of S. 3(1)(b) of the Act, which we have

extracted above. That provides that it would be competent for the Inspector by means of a notification to classify and declare any local area

comprising a revenue village or more than one revenue village as a Panchayat village for the purposes of the Panchayat Act. It is implicit from the

above provision that there exists a power in the Inspector to amalgamate more than one village into one unit for the purpose of the administration

as a Panchayat. It is however needless to say that that cannot be done without limit. For example, this power cannot be exercised so as to

combine 25 villages into a single unit and call it a village. That is because such a notification, if ever it is issued, would be contrary to the spirit of the

Act which is intended to vest the local administration of villages in a representative body consisting of villagers themselves, each village (sic)

ordinarily. In the present case it (sic) by the appellant that the (sic) actuated by any irrelevant (sic) combining the two village (sic) Kandigai and

Kadamalai put (sic) From what we have stated (sic) seen that there were to be (sic) the Panchayat of the form (sic) respect of the latter the

number was five. A Panchayat with five members would be two small to function as a deliberate corporate body. It was, therefore, really in the

interests of the efficient working of the Panchayat that the Inspector of Local Boards thought that batter results could be achieved by combining the

two villages in question into one unit so that a body of 13 members for that Panchayat might deliberate in the matter of local administration. It

cannot, therefore, be said that the notification was anything but bona fide. It was lien contended that the power of cancellation of a notification

given under S. 3 (c) (2) (ii) would relate only to things other than those provided under Sub-S. (1). There is, however, nothing in the section to

warrant such an argument. The power to cancel or modify a notification issued under Sub S. (1) is not limited by anything in the section to cases

other than those provided for in S. 3 (1) (a). It was, however, argued that the policy of the Act is to have a Panchayat for each revenue village

which has a population of more than 500 inhabitants. That may be so. But the Act itself gives power in appropriate cases to the Inspector to

combine more than one revenue village for the purpose of constituting a panchayat village and when, therefore, the Inspector in the instant case

considered that it would be more conducive to the efficient administration of the panchayat that the two villages of Perambur Kandigai and

Kadamalaiputhur should be amalgamated and formed into one Unit, it cannot be said that he acted in excess of his powers. We, therefore, agree

with the learned Judge that the order passed by the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards in any way be considered as opposed to

the provisions of the statute. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.